get_cricket_schedule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches data from Cricbuzz and returns a list of match dictionaries, which covers basic functionality. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or data freshness, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with external dependencies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear returns section. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the second specifies the output format. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks context on data sources, limitations, or error cases. For a tool fetching external data, more completeness (e.g., noting it's read-only, or potential delays) would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get upcoming cricket match schedule from Cricbuzz.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('upcoming cricket match schedule'), and source ('Cricbuzz'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_live_matches' or 'get_match_details' beyond the 'upcoming' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_live_matches' (for current matches) or 'get_match_details' (for specific match info), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the 'upcoming' keyword alone, which is insufficient for clear differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.